Skip to main content

tv   Inside Washington  PBS  February 25, 2012 2:30am-3:00am EST

2:30 am
>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and politico, reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> we have a new television ad that labels him a fake. why? >> because he is a fake. [laughter] >> this week on "inside washington," front runner blues. >> there is no reason we cannot get gas to $2.50 a gallon. >> the lead story in one newspaper said gasoline prices
2:31 am
are on the rise and republicans are licking their chops. >> the politics of reproductive rights. >> these are mean-spirited. >> bloody crackdown in syria and the violent protests in afghanistan. >> it has nothing to do with it being religious in nature or related to islam. it was a mistake. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> we had the 20th debate star and the remaining candidates for the republican nomination. this time it wasn't rick santorum's turn to be the front runner -- was rick santorum's turn to be the forerunner. >> i was fighting to save the lives, you are fighting to save
2:32 am
the bridge to nowhere -- save the olympics, you are fighting to save the bridge to nowhere. >> sometimes you take what for the team and you make a mistake. >> "you take one for the team," just what the tea party was waiting to hear. there is a lot of talk about santorum in michigan. as we look at the polls, is the lead isn't to be shrinking. the he heard himself in the debate, mark? >> he did. give him credit for ending a mistake, something very few candidates can do. he heard himself for being on the defensive and falling into senate-speak. "the motion to recommit --" >> without objection. >> eyes just glaze over. republicans ought to be grateful that 305 million people did not
2:33 am
watched the debate on wednesday night because not a single one of these candidates is more impressive, where, endicott were sharper than he was 10 months ago. >> nina? >> this is a classic example, santorum, of try to explain the intricacies of legislative votes. was forike kerry's "i it before i was against it." it is sad that that is where we are in our political discourse. >> colby? >> he was the victim of a tag team match as well, not mitt romney and ron paul - hitting from both sides. numbers showed a big balloon walking into rick santorum's head. he was off balance all hold two hours. >> charles, can centaur take
2:34 am
michigan? >> -- can santorum take michigan? >> his strength is the tea party treaty wanted to claim the mantle of the tea party, small government, romney being inconsistent and a reliable conservative. the problem with the set or is he has a record of being a big government -- problem with that santorum is that he has a record of being a big government conservative. he supported stuff like no child left behind, which she had to defend and say "i did it because of the team." the whole idea of the tea party is acting on principle even against the majority establishment. what is being discovered is not a tactical error on his part, but the fact that tea party is not who he has been in the past.
2:35 am
he is adopting it as a way to be anti-robbery but it is not a perfect description of who he was. >> why is said robert not stronger -- why is santorum not soar in michigan -- i mean, romney? >> is it his home state? his father was a liberal republican. >> ooh, fighting wordsd. >> let it be told. he is try to adopt michigan by saying things like "i love the trees." that does not go over well. he is not authentic as a candidate. >> why is that he starter there, -- why is he stronger there, mark -- isn't he stronger there, mark?
2:36 am
>> colby is right, time has passed. he ran successfully in 2008 against john mccain as the conservative. now he has three candidates to his right. >> what is going on with ron paul and romney? >> they are objectively allies. it is simple. you or ron paul, you are 76, you are not going to be the president, but your entire objective is to build a movement and give it legitimacy. his goal is not to feed off with number one in delegates in tampa, but number two. romney is that the guy to bring down treaty needs to exceed the total -- romney is not the guy to bring down. he needs to exceed the total of his rivals. a guy who gets a speech in prime
2:37 am
time and hands it to his son as the leader of a strong and legitimate movement inside the republican party. >> let's say seven about what all eye-- say something about rn paul's ideology as well. it is in libertarian movement. one thing that santorum has consistently stood for in his talking points is that government should do certain things about people's private lives. that is not a libertarian movement. to be fair, i think it is offensive to ron paul's ideology. he does not go right and say "i am pro-choice" or anything, but heat said in this debate, "morality is what counts, pills are not orality." >> paul went against newt as not
2:38 am
a social conservative. it is not ideological, it is that he wants to be no. 2. >> if you want to be no. 2, you have to take on no. 1 at some point. may i speak? >> i will give it a shot. >> we had an interesting and of a cal -- analytical discussion of what he wants. i have no idea what he wants. i know what he has done . rick perry was the leader, he went after rick perry. newt gingrich was the leader, he went after newt gingrich. at no point has he gone after mitt romney, who is also intermittently the leader. it is illegitimate conclusion here that there is something going on, -- it is a legitimate conclusion here that there's
2:39 am
something going on, that he wants something more than a speech. >> romney is the only consistent and record front runner. it makes eminent sense that you know what to go after him, you go after your rivals. >> there have been 11 changes in 2011 for the leadership in the polls. >> the only guy who is still there is romney. >> poor rick santorum. he fights for arlen specter and specter turns rocky the next day and says, but " that's not true." >> the art dusting off their three-point plan for $2 gas. >> the president uses strong language and says that those of us who believe we can get to $2 gas is just politics. that is baloney. it was $1.13 a gallon when i was speaker. that is a historic fact. it was $1.89 a gallon when he became president. that is a historic fact. >> actually, i checked, it was,
2:40 am
and in some places in the last. gasoline prices are skyrocketing while we sit here. save gasoline prices are $5 on election day parawhaty. what are his chances for reelection? >> gas prices are like a big tax. however, and i think we have seen enough of this for the last 20 years that people have some sense that politicians don't control this. there was a study recently that showed if the united states that actually was accountable for -- made all its own gas, all pumped in the united states, it would reduce the price of gas internationally and to us at about a few cents a gallon. produce all the gas in the world. >> i understand, but we're
2:41 am
taking more oil out of the ground that we have in years, refineries are running at full blast, gasoline consumption is down. why are prices going up? >> because i liked it newt gingrich and the speaker, you did not have china -- because of like newt gingrich and the speaker, you did not china, the problems you have now with iran. so much uncertainty in the world now. the other thing that is absolutely true, we will never be energy-independent. we're not going to be free of fossil fuels. we will have to learn to reduce, and that will take a variety of things, coming up with alternative sources. >> newt gingrich will put out a 30-minute infomercial about gasoline prices on television. will you watch, charles?
2:42 am
>> it depends. if it jeremy lin is play, i won't. [laughter] >> if he could jeremy lin in the half hour? >> i my watch. -- might watch. >> he said that, but what my job is not to win reelection, my job is not to pass a law. my job is to save western civilization." this man's vanity is a limited per-- is unlimited. "when i was speaker, gas prices or $1.13." >> bill clinton was president. >> i did not hear him give a tip o'neill credit for ronald reagan's revolution in any way. what gas wo -- what gas was at its highest in 2008, but the democrats exploit it
2:43 am
politically? you better believe it. if gas prices are high in 2012, you better believe republicans exploit it. >> can the president win if gasoline is $5 a gallon? >> it will hurt his chances. we lose a big question. generally, the two numbers that tell the most on election day is the -- and pulled the unemployment a -- were at a price of gasoline. it -- the unemployment number and the price of gasoline. it takes money out of your paycheck. it has an indirect effect because it slows the economy. it is attacks on the economy, it ends up in the pockets of saudis and russians. it has the secondary effect on unemployment. in that sense, if it begins to rise and depresses the economic recovery, that is the most
2:44 am
important element. >> is it not true that when ronald reagan was running for reelection, the price of gas also went up, and he won? when george w. bush was running for reelection, the price of gas went up. >> reagan also experienced the dominant question is on a limit, and there had been a tremendous drop in unemployment, and the growth rate of the country was 6%. it is today 1 by 7% -- 1.7%. >> which makes my point that gas prices are not determinative of an election. >> we agree. >> that's nice. >> my body is my right to control. >> she was furious about proposed it virginia legislation that would have required women seeking abortions to undergo
2:45 am
ultrasound imaging by way of vaginal insurgent spirit it di -- vaginal insertions. maryland approved gay marriage. something happens whenever you across that river. >> read state, blue state except with the question of reproductive rights. virginia has been good on this subject. bob mcdonnell how to step back when he got a real reaction to the step he wanted to do there. the other was with sex marriage, but that may be pushed to a referendum. >> during the debate, they seem to shy away from the birth control issue. >> they may have shied away from
2:46 am
it, but if abortion is the question, the republicans win, and of contraception is the issue, the republicans lose. ng title x, this has become a big issue. for women this is a very sleeping giant kind of thing. i had this quotation courtesy of ruth marcus from "the washington post." "george w. bush when he was governor said that if a family planning anything, it is, public health manner." "we would have had a million more but when it pregnancies and nearly half of them would have been abortions." if you are against abortion, why would you be against birth control? >> the only reason it has become an issue amongst republicans is that santorum is living in the
2:47 am
50's and he makes it an issue. i don't see any of the other candidates who make it an issue. remember the earlier debate when abc's stephanopoulos asked about contraception? romney said, "what the hell is this about?" settled issue. instead of doing the kennedy thing, i am a catholic but i don't take orders from the vatican, end story -- he does not say end of story, he keeps talking about it. when santorum is out of the race, unless he wins the nomination, i hope it will buy as an issue. >> santorum had a golden opportunity. this was a chance for him to talk about manufacturing, his grandfather story, speak to
2:48 am
blue-collar republicans. instead, a series of unforced errors, from "phone etiology" of the president to contraception and all of these questions of prenatal testing. it absolutely took the focus from what was working for him to issues that don't work for him. i cannot agree more. abortion is a serious, grave decision. contraception is a settled matter. >> the bloodbath in syria and the protests in afghanistan. >> anyone who gets on the streets, if they are not hit by a show, there are snipers all around. the sickening thing is the complete merciless nature. >> that was a reca and -- was an awardlvin, winning journalist killed this week. is there anything the united states can do to stop the
2:49 am
bloodshed? >> you heard this week to suggestions that we will have to find a way to intervene as well. there will be intervention in syria. i said last week and i think every sign suggests that there will be some kind of caulescent route in international forces to do something. -- caulescent with international forces to do something. the international community is embarrassed and humiliated by what is going on. >> the american people are pretty war-week. -- war weary. >> they are, but they are looking at the slaughter -- this is unadulterated the slaughter of innocents. the strategy of the younger assad is to do with the father did in 1982, were he killed 20,000 people in three weeks and
2:50 am
paved over the city. this is what we're dealing with. the government is speaking of humanitarian aid when it is i will plead irrelevance. -- it is complete irrelevance. what i hear a viewers. -- what i hear are empty words. >> the difference between assad 's father and now is we have pictures contemporaneously. the united states cannot be policeman of the world. this is the hardest kind of moral question to face. i don't have an answer. >> first of all, she won china, shame on russia. second -- same on china, shame on russia. second, 70 nations will meet in tunisia with the pressure building. i'm reluctant to idealize and lionized journalists, but from the coverage of people like marie colvin and people paid by
2:51 am
life or limb for the coverage, we would not know what was going hundred they have forced the conscience of the world to address the devastation, the elimination, in violation of human beings. >> it is not enough to say shame on russia. russia is acting in its national interests. the obama administration has made a point -- the great success in its foreign affairs is reset with russia. he has done nothing. >> in afghanistan, military people inadvertently birgit -- burnt the koran and all hell has broken loose. two four people were killed. >> the reaction has not been surprising. the president's statement of apology is not going to end what is going on at there.
2:52 am
the karzai government also recognizes the problem and -- >> this is the example of cultural classes when we get involved in -- cultural clashes when we get involved in a country. >> mark, your thoughts on afghanistan? >> after 10 years, we might have learned that korans is not helpful, is harmful. there is no question that on both sides we have people in afghanistan to what is out, a thai-americans exploiting this. --anti-americans are exploiting this. afghanistan is a loser, and the united states, the quicker we are out, the better. >> newt had the best word on this -- all but what we will
2:53 am
apologize for the burning of -- we will apologize for the burning of korans, ok, but let's demand an apology for the killing of two americans. this image as americans. we have the people dying in afghanistan so that people can have freedom and democracy. this is a culture where that is not welcome. i think that the two parties' share the problem here and the responsibility, because it was the democrats, i will remind you come in 2004, for about five or six years, arguing that afghanistan was the good war and iraq was a distraction. it was obama who tripled our troops and doubled our spending. it was america as a country that made the decision. all the milly, we will be out and i am not sure how much of afghanistan will not change.
2:54 am
>> i would agree with the general-admiral gingrich, that if we don't get the apologize from gaza, we ought to just go home. -- apology from karzai, ought to just go home. subpanels happened to that is worth taking note of. decimating al qaeda -- that was the purpose for going into afghanistan. we launched successfully to get osama bin laden. now how do we disengage? we have to do that. >> how to disengage and keep tabs on what is happening in pakistan? >> that is the problem. >> the irony is that people think of pakistan as the problem in our dealing with
2:55 am
afghanistan, but it is the opposite. afghanistan had the strategic value only. -- onlys as a place from which you could intervene in afpakistan. it at the wedding will be a problem. the only answer is to have india -- evacuate will be a problem. the only etc. india take our role. why us? it should be the indians. >> indians and pakistanis have always been close. [laughter] iraq, afghanistan and, now the war drums for iran -- is it too much to ask that before we send americans into peril and combat and death, that we have a debate in the cars of the united states and a vote -- in the congress of the united states in a vote, up or down --
2:56 am
>> we had that. what you talking about? >> the issue we need to worry about is thinking about foreign and will- iran, a there be a strike on iran by israel? if that happens, we are all going into it. that is why we need a full-scale debate in the united states. >> the constitution of the united states requires a declaration of war. we have not had that. don't talk about the debate on the eve of the 20102 election. opposition was cowed. >> see you next week.
2:57 am
2:58 am
2:59 am

74 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on